User:BobHammero/Sandbox/Making the Policies Not Suck/Banning of Users

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Warning and Banning of Users

Warning and banning of users is restricted to Moderators due to security reasons - a conflict between two users could easily escalate to a constant ban war if such power were available to all users. It is expected from a Moderator to always try to look at a reported edit as a good faith attempt to improve the Wiki. Also, it is expected from a Moderator to be prepared to reverse a warn/ban should the community desire it. It is part of a Moderator's responsibility to warn or ban any vandals they find on the wiki, subject to the guidelines below.

Moderators may only warn or ban users who consistently vandalise wiki pages. This is by definition an edit not made in a good-faith attempt to improve this wiki. Many examples of this can be found on UDWiki:Vandalism. Aditionally, some pages may have specific rules as to their usage, and consistent and flagrant disregard for those rules may also be considered vandalism.

Moderators may only ban an user when:

  1. This user's account is an alternate account of a vandal that is still under his ban period.
  2. This user's account is an adbot. (A type of computer program to do automated edits such as the creation of pages/links with the only purpose of promoting off-topic stuff, usually creating link farms in the process.)
  3. This user's account has made at least 3 (three) edits, at least one of which was deemed vandalism, and none of which were deemed to be constructive or to the benefit of the majority of the wiki.
  4. A report has been filed through on UDWiki:Moderation/Vandal Banning, and this user's account doesn't match with any of the previous instances shown above.

In all but the fourth of the above instances there is no warning to be delivered and ban duration is to be infinite. In case that the vandal fits the fourth instance shown above, a Moderator is expected to warn the user twice (in response to at least two different reports) on their talk page before administering a ban, and after that the bans shall be escalating in nature, the first being for 24 hours, the second being for 48 hours, the third being a week, the fourth being a month, the fifth being a year and the sixth ban being infinite.

Aditionally, some users may be under limitations imposed by an Arbitrator according to the UDWiki:Moderation/Arbitration page. In that case, a violation of those limitations will be treated as vandalism and subject to the same treatments as the 4th instance shown above but ignoring warnings as the UDWiki:Moderation/Arbitration page's rules state.

In the event of wiki software being improved so that a Moderator can view IP addresses of users, a Moderator may also choose to ban the IP of a user for the same duration that the user's account was banned, provided that the Moderator believes that the user is circumventing their account ban, or is planning to do so.

When a Moderator warns or bans an user, the action should be noted on the UDWiki:Moderation/Vandal Data page. In the unlikely case that a Moderator bans a user without merit or following the guidelines above and a Misconduct case is filed against him or her, said Moderator may be banned for the same duration of time that the user was unfairly banned, should the ruling moderators on the misconduct case deem it necessary.

Butcher's time! --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC | T | W! 03:20, 21 July 2006 (BST)

Changes Made

  • Most of the wording.
  • Scrapped most of the ambiguous text about the moderator and his duty and stuff.
  • Included 3 totally new instances were the Moderator can permaban an user.
  • Made it so moderators must use the M/VB page only in the 4th instance.
  • Made it so moderators can't report/warn-ban an user on this 4th instance by themselves. This cuts some moderator power, and can be changed or obliterated if desired so. Obliterated
  • Included the ban of an user that violates an Arbitration ruling on the wording. (Xoid's advice)
  • Included the ban of a Moderator that administers a bad faith ban to an user on the wording.
  • Sixth ban on a user (after a year long retirement) made to be infinite. (Someone-that-I-must-not-name-until-a-week-from-now's advice)
  • Removed some limitations to mod powers. (Bob's advice)
  • Included warns in a lot of the wording. (Bob's advice)
  • Corrected the IP ban powers text. (Bob's advice)
  • Changed the 3rd instance wording. (My own advice, Bob's wording)

I think that the most glaring problem with this is the fact that permabanning is never reached. Maybe the sixth ban should be permanent? Cyberbob  Talk  03:23, 21 July 2006 (BST)

I did try to start a discussion on this on the old wiki forum, but nobody showed up. –Xoid S•T•FU! 06:35, 21 July 2006 (BST)
Screw the wiki forum. My sandbox is vastly superior in every way. E.g., we have free beer. The wiki forum does not. Pwned. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 06:37, 21 July 2006 (BST)
You will hate me, but I don't like beer =P --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC | T | W! 06:39, 21 July 2006 (BST)
There. Some spelling and typos fixed. Now, I say the sixth ban should be infinite, and that warnings should "fade" with time. Matthew: At the moment, your writing of it conflicts with the Arbitration page's rules. I'll go resurrect my posts from the old forum and put them on the new. Perhaps we could discuss this there, as I know it would be easier for simple to-ing and fro-ing. –Xoid S•T•FU! 06:43, 21 July 2006 (BST)
Actually I agreed with the old assumption that a year's long ban it's the same that an infinite ban against an active user, but seeing how we run out of months and a guy as stubborn as Amazing WILL be back, maybe you're right. I don't think that infinite bans should be reserved to special ocassions.
About the Arbitration bit, I added it to contemplate the fact that some warnings/bans can come from the violation of an arbitration's ruling. If you mind to help me with the wording, it can be changed. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC | T | W! 06:49, 21 July 2006 (BST)
Changed some things. About the "fading away" warnings, It's a cool idea, but how to implement them? how much time will a warning last? something like 3 months sound right, but the wording is the thing that puzzles me the most. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC | T | W! 18:21, 22 July 2006 (BST)

Okay. I've got a few serious problems with the wording on this one:

  • "On this special case, the moderator may not ban an user over an edit's report that himself or herself has reported on said page." — What about warnings? Can we report-warn? If so, then why not report-ban? I think that we should have the carte blanche ability to report and warn/ban at the same time. If we've fucked up, there are processes to deal with that.
  • "In that case a Moderator is expected to warn the user twice (in response to at least two different edits)…" — So does this mean that if someone makes three bad-faith edits in a one minute period, that s/he should be banned for 24 hours? If so, the wording needs to change. Warnings should be given for "packets" of edits; users should have a chance to redeem themselves after having made several bad-faith edits and received a warning for the whole group.
  • "In the event of wiki software being improved sufficiently that a Moderator can view IPs of logged in users, a Moderator may also choose to ban the IP of a user on this scale, should the Moderator deem it neccesary." — This makes it sound as though the IP banning would have to begin at the beginning of the scale — in other words, people like 3page would be given two IP "warnings" first, then a 24 hour ban, etc.
  • "In the unlikely case that a Moderator bans an user without merit or following the guidelines above and a Misconduct case is filed against him, said Moderator is to be treated as a vandal of the 4th instance shown above, plus suffer a ban with at least the same time duration that the one he imposed, but greater if the UDWiki:Moderation/Vandal Data info on the Moderator's account says so." — No, no, no, no, no. Think about that "Seanofthedead" guy. Remember how I permabanned him? ∞ > 1 warning, so I would be permabanned over that. Think I should be permabanned? The punishments for misconduct shouldn't be so automatic.

–Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 18:48, 22 July 2006 (BST)

Ok, lets start:
  • Most of the latest Misconduct cases are about report/warn-ban by a Moderator. While this rule cuts a good deal of moderation power by itself, it prevents a moderator to take the place of jury and judge on the M/VB page. The "2 users make lawl" rule is to prevent a wave of not deserved warn-bans and the consecuent wave of Misconduct casses that that will carry. Given the 3 other instances that I gave, where hastiness is a good thing, I don't think that a warning is needed to be administered seconds after the edit that caused it.
  • How about "in response to at least two different reports"?
  • Help me with the wording? the intention of that slab of text is to allow Moderators to ban the IP of a Vandal if this vandal is recurrently creating accounts to evade his ban or if the Moderator believes it's more convenient to do so in general, when the tecnology neccesary for that is available (hopefully at the end of the month, but who knows?).
  • You permabanned him, but that ban was retracted before the meter reached "infinite" (that wuold be never). IF, and only IF a Misconduct case was filed and ruled against you (by "ruled against you" I mean it was proven to the other mods that your warn/ban had no merit, you wuold be banned for the same time he was: something like 3 hours? maybe less. Can be taken off too if you think the proccess shouldn't be as automatic, and only state that "some bans can be achieved by misconduct case's rulings", but again we wuold have a weak rule... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Matthewfarenheit (talk • contribs) .
Responding in order:
  1. Simply put, that's exactly the problem: it takes away a good deal, by which I mean "almost all," of our power when it comes to keeping users in line. As I said before, if there is a wave of sudden misconduct, there are already processes to deal with it. M/M exists to handle those problems. There is no reason to make the rules overly restrictive in order to "protect" that page. Moderators should have the power to report and warn/ban users. I have to ask: if the community doesn't trust us enough to warn and ban responsibly, why did they elect us as moderators in the first place? After all, if I really wanted to, I could ban you and anyone else right now. I'm obviously not reckless and stupid, so why would giving me the power to stop problems before they grow larger make me that way?
  2. That phrasing is much better.
  3. How about "In the event of wiki software being improved so that a Moderator can view IP addresses of users, a Moderator may also choose to ban the IP of a user for the same duration that the user's account was banned, provided that the Moderator believes that the user is circumventing their account ban, or is planning to do so."
  4. How about something along the lines of, "In the unlikely case that a Moderator bans a user without merit or following the guidelines above and a Misconduct case is filed against him or her, said Moderator may be banned for the same duration of time that the user was unfairly banned, should the ruling moderators on the misconduct case deem it necessary."
  5. Another thing: the rules still do not cover warnings, only bans.
–Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 20:19, 22 July 2006 (BST)
Looks like brainstorming works: the policy looks a hell lot better now. Now, let's get to the point(s):
  1. I added a lot of "warn/bans" and "warn or ban" to include warnings on the wording, and changed the title of the guideline too. Does it look good?
  2. The third instance covers plenty of the vandal-only accounts that are made daily, but maybe not all. For example, what about a guy like TEH SPMMAR that made some edits commenting on his own case in the M/VB page. While these comments were pretty dumb, they were not vandalism, but he proved to be a vandal after that by creating some accounts with the only purpose of vandalizing pages (A Vandal and SPM MACHIEN). Maybe change the wording somehow so it includes these cases? something in the lines of: "This user's account has made at least 3 (three) edits and all of them were deemed vandalism or complementary to the vandalism itself".
  3. The wording of the policy STILL require a Moderator to place the report first, then warn/ban (only in the 4th instance). It's not intentional, it's just a detail. Should that be changed?
Waiting for comments. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC | T | W! 22:19, 22 July 2006 (BST)
  1. Looking much better. Nice work.
  2. Good point about TEH SPMMAR and the like. What about "The user has made at least 3 (three) edits, at least one of which was deemed vandalism, and none of which were deemed to be constructive or to the benefit of the majority of the wiki." I think that would cover our bases, because it wouldn't allow things like the comments made by TEH SPMMAR, but it would give leeway to misguided users who have contributed something of value to the wiki.
  3. It does? I don't see where it requires the moderator to make the report, but I must have missed it. It should be changed, yes, because anyone is allowed to file a vandalism report.
–Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 23:16, 22 July 2006 (BST)
  1. Thanks =).
  2. Changed the 3rd instance to your version that looks far better than mine.
  3. I think you didn't get me. I was referring that with the current wording a report must be placed (either by a mod or a normal user) before the actual warn/ban. This way, a mod that reports and warns/bans by himself has to put the report first or it will be misconduct: a silly rule, altough it prevents a mod to "forget" writing the report, or report it late. That makes me remember that Karlsbad once was so pissed off with me that warned the guy I reported but forgot to actually place the warning in the user's talk page. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC | T | W! 00:15, 23 July 2006 (BST)
Ah, I see what you mean now. Yeah, as sad as I am to say it, I think people would use that small loophole to file misconduct cases if they could. I'm not sure the best way to go about revising it. Maybe just adding a note stating that a warn/ban and a report can happen in either order? But that opens up ambiguity and "which part is correct" questions. Hmm. I'll have to think about it. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 00:30, 23 July 2006 (BST)
Definitely in either order. In cases where it is imperitive that a user gets banned first, writing a report takes time — leaving that user to create more havoc until which point they can be instant-permabanned without question anyway. That is what we are trying to avoid.
Also; Bob, have you seen my proposed reform to the banning rules on the forum? Apart from the General, no one's deigned to comment. –Xoid S•T•FU! 03:13, 23 July 2006 (BST)
I haven't, no. Actually, I haven't been able to get the forum to load for some reason. Would you like to put your changes on here as well? –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 05:24, 23 July 2006 (BST)

I'm aware that Odd hates the idea of a permanent ban, but we need to be realistic here: if someone stews an entire year and comes back to vandalise the wiki, then it should be blatantly obvious that they are irredeemable.


I think that a permanent ban should be instituted for those who prove themselves to be idiots -- even after a year off. By the same token, if it's borderline we do not want to risk alienating or exiling someone who may have learnt their lesson.

So this is my proposed reform to the system:

  • Warnings will be considered null and void at the rate of one per two and a half months
  • Bannings are permanent, and unchanging.
  • A null and void warning will be crossed out on Vandal Data.
  • Before another banning may take place, the user must have two current warnings.

Everyone see where I am going with this? There is leeway there for extended good behaviour, but if someone acts like an idiot, they can still get banned quickly enough.

Quoted in entirety. –Xoid S•T•FU! 05:32, 23 July 2006 (BST)
Constructive criticism:
  1. Two and a half months? How you came up with that number? it's easier to keep record if it's a natural number of months (i.e. 3).
  2. Warnings expire even when you're already banned? "Oh! two-and-a-half-months passed since my second warning, I can vandalize again without being banned the proper month! WOOHOO!" As you can see, it's like a free vandal ticket that people can use 4-5 times per year.
"If it's just warnings that expire when you only have warnings (like a lot of newbies that start their lifes on the wiki being reported on the M/VB, or most of the current mods that got a warning because of really old, one time only events) I like it. But a vandal that already got warnings and a ban it's proven to be a not very contributive or at least quite careless user. The only result is that, when the "punishment" becomes lenient enough, the "punished" doesn't learn anything (and I know punishment isn't the real purpose of a ban, that's why I used ""). --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC | T | W! 06:59, 23 July 2006 (BST)
Two and a half months? That's a long time. We need to be realistic here. This game has only existed for a full year, and if someone has truly tried to reform, getting hit by one of the rules that requires no proof of intent is harsh. Too little a time and people will use it just like you have already mentioned. Too long a time, and then why bother letting the warnings get removed at all? It's a balancing act. Which is why I asked for feedback on the numbers. Those aren't going to set to the right amount by essentially saying "why'd you pull those numbers out of your arse?", or by fancy mathematical equations, this is something that is going to require people to use their instinct. –Xoid S•T•FU! 07:12, 23 July 2006 (BST)

What about a combined time limit/constructive edits system to let people "work off their warnings"? If someone has warnings on the record, once every two months and one thousand non-vandalism edits, one warning will be stricken from the record. Thus, if someone had two warnings, and they went four months without a single substantiated vandalism report, and contributed at least two thousand edits in that time, both edits would be removed from the record. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 07:25, 23 July 2006 (BST)

Good idea. That gets around both issues. I'd tone down the edit requirement by perhaps 100 or 200 edits though — I'm the edit king, but that doesn't mean everyone else is. –Xoid S•T•FU! 07:47, 23 July 2006 (BST)
Good point. (I tend to think that most people are as productive as you and I are.) How about 750 edits? That's the next "round number down," it seems. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 08:11, 23 July 2006 (BST)
Altough the ammount of edits doesn't mean too much, the combined time limit/constructive edits could work. I think the time should be something around 2 months and the edits from 250 to a max of 500, no more. Unless Bob wants it to apply only to everyone we know XD. But should the warnings fade away even if the guy already got a ban? I still think not. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC | T | W! 09:23, 23 July 2006 (BST)
Well, the idea would be for the person to put in "community service" of some sort, basically, but perhaps 500 edits would be a better number. I don't know. Something substantial, but not impossible to achieve. I disagree on the bans part though: why wouldn't someone who was banned once be able to reform? –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 10:04, 23 July 2006 (BST)

Warning and Banning of Users

About the attributions of Moderators when warning/banning users

Warning and banning of users is restricted to Moderators due to security reasons - a conflict between two users could easily escalate to a constant ban war if such power were available to all users. It is expected from a Moderator to always try to look at a reported edit as a good faith attempt to improve the Wiki. Also, it is expected from a Moderator to be prepared to reverse a warn/ban should the community desire it. It is part of a Moderator's responsibility to warn or ban any vandals they find on the wiki, subject to the guidelines below.

In the event of wiki software being improved so that a Moderator can view IP addresses of users, a Moderator may also choose to ban the IP of a user for the same duration that the user's account was banned, provided that the Moderator believes that the user is circumventing their account ban, or is planning to do so.

When a Moderator warns or bans an user, the action should be noted on the UDWiki:Moderation/Vandal Data page.

About what is considered vandalism

Moderators may only warn or ban users who consistently vandalise this Wiki's pages. This is by definition an edit not made in a good-faith attempt to improve this Wiki. Many examples of this can be found on UDWiki:Vandalism. Aditionally, some pages may have specific rules as to their usage, and consistent and flagrant disregard for those rules may also be considered vandalism.

About the instances were an user may be warned/banned from the wiki

Moderators may only warn/ban an user when:

  1. This user's account is an alternate account of a vandal that is still under his ban period.
  2. This user's account is an adbot. (A type of computer program to do automated edits such as the creation of pages/links with the only purpose of promoting off-topic stuff, usually creating link farms in the process.)
  3. This user's account has made at least 3 (three) edits, at least one of which was deemed vandalism, and none of which were deemed to be constructive or to the benefit of the majority of the wiki.
  4. A report has been filed through UDWiki:Moderation/Vandal Banning, and this user's account doesn't match with any of the previous instances shown above. Also note that if this type of vandalism is found by a Moderator, he can warn/ban this user before a report is made on UDWiki:Moderation/Vandal Banning as long as the report is placed on the brevity by himself or someone else.

In the unlikely case that a Moderator bans a user without merit or following the guidelines above and a Misconduct case is filed against him or her, said Moderator may be banned for the same duration of time that the user was unfairly banned, should the ruling moderators on the misconduct case deem it necessary.

Aditionally, some users may be under limitations imposed by an Arbitrator according to the UDWiki:Moderation/Arbitration page. In that case, a violation of those limitations will be treated as vandalism and subject to the same treatments as the 4th instance shown above but ignoring warnings as the UDWiki:Moderation/Arbitration page's rules state.

About the cycle of warnings and bannings

In all but the fourth of the above instances there is no warning to be delivered and ban duration is to be infinite. In case that the vandal fits the fourth instance shown above, a Moderator is expected to warn/ban the user according to the following process:

The first action to take is to warn the user: A user must be warned at least twice (in response to at least two different reports) before administering his first ban. Warnings are to be placed on the talk page of the vandal's account and recorded on the vandal data page. In order to promote users to reform and become good contributors to this Wiki, a single warning can be struck out per 250 edits they make, provided two months has passed since their last infraction. No ban shall be delivered if the user has less than two standing warnings on their record on the vandal data page, even if they have been already banned before.

If the user is still found vandalizing this Wiki and his two warnings still stand, the Moderator then must ban the user. The bans shall be escalating in nature, the first being for 24 hours, the second being for 48 hours, the third being a week, the fourth being a month, the fifth being a year and the sixth and last ban being infinite.

This could be the final version, if you guys like the wording and correct the many spelling and grammar errors it must have (sorry =S). I tought about 250 edits because it conciliates what both of you were saying and the Special:Contributions page has an option to show the latest 250 edits so it's very useful. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC | T | W! 05:52, 30 July 2006 (BST)


[text omitted] –Xoid S•T•FU! 06:32, 30 July 2006 (BST)

Added the corrections to the main text. If it's just a wording issue it wuold be cool for you to just add it: I know my english spelling isn't perfect and never will so I thank you a lot. I wuold have cut and paste the text you added to avoid clutter but maybe it wuold qualify for impersonation. Also, do you think it's finished or something is still in need to be changed/added? --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC | T | W! 07:47, 30 July 2006 (BST)
That's actually the same reason I didn't edit yours. >_<
Anyway, give me a day to think about it, maybe something will come to me, maybe not. –Xoid S•T•FU! 08:55, 30 July 2006 (BST)

I like it. I've fixed up the grammar and spelling in the version below, and reworded a few things to make them clearer. Let me know what you think. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 05:21, 31 July 2006 (BST)

Warning and Banning of Users

Introduction

Warning and banning of users is restricted to Moderators due to security reasons — a conflict between two users could easily escalate to a constant ban war if such power were available to all users. It is expected that a Moderator will always try to look at a reported edit from the viewpoint that it is a good faith attempt to improve the Wiki. Also, it is expected that a Moderator be prepared to reverse a warning/ban should the community desire it. It is part of a Moderator's responsibility to warn or ban any vandals they find on the wiki, subject to the guidelines below.

In the event of wiki software being improved so that a Moderator can view IP addresses of users, a Moderator may also choose to ban the IP of a user for the same duration that the user's account was banned, provided that the Moderator believes that the user is circumventing their account ban, or is planning to do so.

When a Moderator warns or bans an user, the action should be noted on the UDWiki:Moderation/Vandal Data page.

What is Considered Vandalism

Moderators may only warn or ban users who consistently vandalize the Wiki. Vandalism is by definition an edit not made in a good-faith attempt to improve this Wiki. Many examples of this can be found on UDWiki:Vandalism. Additionally, some pages may have specific rules as to their usage, and consistent and flagrant disregard for those rules may also be considered vandalism.

When a User May Be Warned or Banned

Moderators may only warn/ban a user when:

  1. The user is an alternate account of a vandal that is still under his/her ban period.
  2. The user is an adbot (a type of computer program used for automated edits such as the creation of pages/links with no legitimate purpose).
  3. The user has made at least 3 (three) edits, at least one of which is deemed vandalism, and none of which are deemed to be constructive or to the benefit of the majority of the wiki.
  4. A report has been filed through UDWiki:Moderation/Vandal Banning, and the user doesn't match any of the previous instances shown above. In this instance, a moderator is specifically given the ability to warn/ban the user before a report is made on UDWiki:Moderation/Vandal Banning, as long as the report is placed on that page shortly thereafter by the moderator or someone else. Furthermore, moderators are specifically given the ability to both report and warn/ban a user.

In the unlikely case that a Moderator bans a user without merit or without following the guidelines above, and a Misconduct case is filed against him or her, said Moderator may be banned for the same duration of time that the user was unfairly banned, should the ruling moderators on the misconduct case deem it necessary.

Additionally, some users may be under limitations imposed by an Arbitrator according to the UDWiki:Moderation/Arbitration page. In that case, a violation of those limitations will be treated as vandalism subject to the same treatments as the fourth instance shown above, while ignoring warnings, as per the UDWiki:Moderation/Arbitration page's rules.

Cycle of Warnings and Bannings

In all but the fourth of the above instances, the moderator should impose an infinite ban without a warning. In the case of the fourth instance, a Moderator is expected to warn/ban the user according to the following process:

The first action to be taken is to warn the user. A user must be warned at least twice (in response to at least two different reports) before a moderator may administer the first ban. Warnings are to be placed on the talk page of the user's account and recorded on the vandal data page. To promote users to reform and become good contributors to this Wiki, a single warning can be struck out for every 250 good-faith edits the warned user makes, provided that two months have passed since the user's last infraction. No ban shall be delivered if the user has less than two standing warnings on his or her record on the vandal data page, even if he or she has been banned before.

If the user is still found vandalizing this Wiki and his or her two warnings still stand, the Moderator then may ban the user. The bans shall be escalating in nature, the first being for 24 hours, the second being for 48 hours, the third being for one week, the fourth being for one month, the fifth being for one year, and the sixth and last ban being infinite.

I'm just worried about all the "may"s and "should"s that replace "must"s and "has to"s. It's like if no Moderator WANTS to do it they just don't do it, when it's a Moderator responsibility to respond a normal user's request to penalize a vandal. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC | T | W! 23:10, 1 August 2006 (BST)

Which specific phrases are you talking about? –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 00:52, 2 August 2006 (BST)
Just two instances on the "Cycle of Warnings and Bannings" header, tell me if I'm being a little too capricious.
  • In all but the fourth of the above instances, the moderator should impose an infinite ban without a warning.
  • If the user is still found vandalizing this Wiki and his or her two warnings still stand, the Moderator then may ban the user.
After this, if there's no more objections to this part of the guidelines, we may consider this part of the changes complete? I suppose that this part of the guidelines if implemented may need to be accompanied by some changes to the text of M/VB and M/VD. Aditionally, if you wuold like to you could move the discussion of this part of the guidelines to some kind of Archive to avoid clutter and link to people when this goes to Policy Discussion. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC | T | W! 02:16, 2 August 2006 (BST)
I can see your point, but for some reason I'm reluctant to put in the "must" wording. I like to be able to make judgement calls, I guess. Xoid, got an opinion on this one?
I think we should finish working on M/G, and then go on to the other moderation pages, after this one. Once it's finalized, we can move the discussion of this section to a different page, yeah. Good idea. And you have the honor of bringing up this policy change. :) –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 02:23, 2 August 2006 (BST)
Judgement calls. If X made one edit that was bad faith and had n edits that didn't improve the wiki (yet did not degrade it any) they would be forced to be banned under Fahrenheit's rewording. That would be grossly unfair. –Xoid S•T•FU! 03:32, 2 August 2006 (BST)
Call me Matt please =). You're talking about the 3rd instance Xoid? --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC | T | W! 04:56, 2 August 2006 (BST)
Yup, that's the one I'm talking about Matt. It's not common, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be leeway in those circumstances. Either that or you'll have to reword the section where it is "improve the wiki for a majority of people". Hypothetical situation: someone makes one vandalism edit, yet votes on the suggestion page. Voting is not improving the wiki for the majority of people, but it's certainly not degrading the quality any. (Yeah, I know there are some votes that do, but you know what I'm talking about.)
What do you think about adding a section to deal with people who make multiple accounts and then abuse that currently protected privilege? i.e. Voting more than once, or like Wikkicade? (Who was not banned, but was warned.) I doubt anyone will question the fact that the person in question should have had that alternate account banned, but we do have bleeding heart crybabies out there. –Xoid S•T•FU! 05:06, 2 August 2006 (BST)
Heh. That wording was made by Bob when I said him that the rule was a bit too weak when it just covered "3 straight vandalisms". Maybe it should be changed to something like "The user has made at least 3 (three) edits, at least one of which is deemed vandalism and the other ones are also vandalism or complementary to the vandalism itself". That way we could cover non-vandals like Seanofthedead21 that you were talking about. About the other issue, I don't understand it really, but if it's about non-vandals making alt accounts, I think that every alt should be punished by 1 vandal report for the original account and permaban for the alt. There's no way that someone could make an alt for himself "in good faith", but that's just my oppinion. You say that the current rules protect people making multiple accounts? WHERE? BURN THESE RULES DOWN! --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC | T | W! 05:30, 2 August 2006 (BST)
Precedent covers it. There are some, rare exceptions where an alternate account is necessary or desirable. Lets say that I make a bot to perform maintenance work around here. The bot should be under an alternate account, like it is on wikipedia. What about Mia's alternate account? That one is used to prevent thinks placed in the userspace from showing up dozens of "Templates used on this page". Or Hagnat's for that matter? There are circumstances where an alt is not only good faith, but preferable, although it should be on a case-by-case basis and noted before someone creates the account. –Xoid S•T•FU! 05:35, 2 August 2006 (BST)
If new rules/changes to rules are applied, I think precident doesn't apply anymore. But I do see your point. Maybe we could create a record of these accounts: every one of them should have his original creator and purpose listed, to avoid that kind of problems, and punish anyone who abuses this privilege. And what about the change to the wording that I proposed to the 3rd instance? --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC | T | W! 05:50, 2 August 2006 (BST)
Well of course precedent doesn't apply if new rules come into effect that specifically overrule precedent. The record of multiple accounts? A very good idea. I wish that issue was something that people other than myself paid more attention to. With the exception of maybe, one or two other users no one seems to have given a rat's arse about it.
The rewording sounds good, but is still problematic. We still have people here who intend to follow rules to the letter, and not the spirit, which is why this whole re-wording is necessary in the first place. I can't really think straight at the momment Matt, so I'll leave Bob to comment on it further than that. –Xoid S•T•FU! 06:05, 2 August 2006 (BST)
Why don't we add this somewhere and call it done: "Moderators, as trusted users of the wiki, are given the right to make judgement calls and use their best discretion on a case-by-case basis. Should the exact wording of the policies run contrary to a moderator's best good-faith judgement and/or the spirit of the policies, the exact wording may be ignored. If a moderator is found to have been in error, the processes of Moderation Misconduct may be used to resolve the issue." –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 09:17, 6 August 2006 (BST)
While that gives us room to act, it also removes the certainty that "action x is not misconduct". –Xoid S•T•FU! 10:25, 6 August 2006 (BST)
Correct. It gives fellow moderators as much room to exercise their judgement in misconduct cases as it does others to exercise their judgement when dealing with vandalism reports, deletion requests, etc. And isn't that what we really want? Imagine that you go to court and present a case to a judge, and are told "well, although my judgement tells me that running across the street to stop an infant from being hit by a bus was the right thing to do, the letter of the law says that jaywalking is a crime, so you'll be fined instead of given a civilian's medal." Don't we want room for judgement instead of rigid adherence to the written word? –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 10:43, 6 August 2006 (BST)
Excellent point. Tell me when you've added it/finished the policy. I think it's close enough to completion that it may be ready for a vote. –Xoid S•T•FU! 10:51, 6 August 2006 (BST)
Never underestimate the power of exaggeration. ;) I'll let Matthew do the editing. I think once that's settled we can finally get this change started. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 19:20, 6 August 2006 (BST)
Well, that text (that I think it's a good solution to most wording problems and the constant fear for Misconduct) should be added at the general text of the policy, not under the "Warning and Banning of users" header, so let's keep it out until the whole text of the guidelines is done. About the record of alt accounts, that wuoldn't be included on the guidelines but on another policy change aside from this one, and I think it wuold we wise of my part to let the developing fall on the hands of an user with far more expertise on this issue such as Xoid. So, if you agree with me, this part of the guidelines is complete? --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC | T | W! 23:47, 6 August 2006 (BST)
I'd say we're ready to go on this one. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 00:03, 7 August 2006 (BST)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=User:BobHammero/Sandbox/Making_the_Policies_Not_Suck/Banning_of_Users&oldid=1890574"